Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T00:51:20.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Definition, Diagnosis, and Management of Growth-Discordant Twins: An International Census Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

I. Blickstein
I. Blickstein*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaplan Hospital, (affiliated to the Hadassah-Hebrew University School of Medicine, Jerusalem), Rehovot, Israel
*
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaplan Hospital, 76100 Rehovot, Israel.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In order to establish a protocol considering the definition, diagnosis, and management of growth-discordant twin gestations, a questionnaire was sent to 96 authors of twin-related obstetric articles. The views of the 61 responders comprise this international census survey. The data suggest that a clear cut-off value for discordancy is still needed; however, the data indirectly supported a two-grade definition, namely, mild (> 15% and < 25% birth-weight disparity) and severe (> 25%) growth discordants. Expectant management was advocated by the majority of participants with out-patient follow-up for mild discordants, while severe discordants may preferably be hospitalized. Follow-up should be done by non-stress testing (daily - 2/wk), biophysical profile (1-2/wk), Doppler velocimetry (1/wk - bi-weekly) and sonographic biometry (bi-weekly). The opinions considering termination of pregnancy because of intertwin growth discordancy were divided; however, discordancy per se, was not considered an indication for cesarean delivery. An adapted management flowchart that summarizes the survey's data is presented and may be used as a standard for future investigations.

Keywords

TwinsPregnancyDelivery management
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 40 , Issue 3-4 , October 1991 , pp. 345 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1991

References

REFERENCES

1. Blickstein, I, Lancet, M (1988): The growth discordant twin. Obstet Gynecol Surv 43:509–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Blickstein, I, Shoham-Schwartz, Z, Lancet, M, Borenstein, R (1987): Characterization of the growth discordant twin. Obstet Gynecol 70:11–15.Google Scholar
3. Blickstein, I, Shoham-Schwartz, Z, Lancet, M (1989): Growth discordancy in appropriate for gestational age, term twins. Obstet Gynecol 72:582–584.Google Scholar
4. Blickstein, I, Lancet, M (1989): Second-breech presentation in twins. A possible adaptive measure to promote fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 73:700–702.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Blickstein, I, Weissman, A (1990): Birth weight discordancy in male-first and female-first pairs of unlike-sexed twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 162:661–663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Blickstein, I (1990): Twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 76:714–722.Google Scholar
7. Blickstein, I, Friedman, A, Caspi, B, Lancet, M (1988): Ultrasonic prediction of growth discordancy by intertwin difference in abdominal circumference. Int J Gynecol Obstet 29:121–124.Google Scholar
8. Farmakides, G, Schulman, H, Saldana, LR, Bracero, LA, Fleischer, AF, Rochelson, B (1985): Surveillance of twin pregnancy with umbilical arterial velocimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 153:789–792.Google Scholar
9. Gerson, AG, Wallace, DM, Bridgens, NK, Ashmead, GG, Weiner, S, Bolognese, RJ (1987): Duplex Doppler ultrasound in the evaluation of growth in twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 70:419–423.Google Scholar
10. Rodis, JF, Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Pinette, MG, Nochimson, DJ (1990): Intrauterine fetal growth in concordant twin gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 162:1025–1029.Google Scholar
11. Storlazzi, E, Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, DJ, Weinbaum, PJ (1987): Ultrasonic diagnosis of discordant fetal growth in twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol 69:363–367.Google Scholar